spunkets:
They are different plans, Nixon’s would require the Industry to use the private Insurance Market and those Insurance expenses could also be subsidized by allowing them to be deductible against Earnings, so after taxes, the cost would have been lower than what you think.
Obama’s is a totally government run system that in principle, does not like the private insurance industry and in theory, they would want the Federal Government to run the entire Health Insurance System.
They are similar in there goals but they are different in principle. Lets start with some issues, if someone loses a job and has pre-existing medical conditions, it is impossible for those folks to get health insurance, so if you have diabetes, heart issues, high-blood pressure, etc, many Private insurance firms will not even allow those types of folks to buy insurance.
Nixon’s Health Insurance plan if you stop and think about it is not in essence different from how most Retirement plans are used today. Rather than the old Defined benefit plans, which are seriously underfunded regardless if we are talking about Corporations or Government entities, all new Retirement plans that are recognized under the tax laws are more of Defined Contribution Plans such as 401K type plans were the Employer makes a contribution to the employees retirement plan, the employee makes his or her contribution, and those retirement funds are “tax deferred” until the employee reaches retirement age
However, these Defined Contribution plans are run by Private Equity Fund/Mutual Fund Companies who have accountability to their Shareholders rather than the money from these Defined Contribution plans having to be put into a Government run Retirement plan.
So the underlying principles between Nixon’s Health Insurance plan are not different from how the Government allows Defined Contribution Plans to be run and how they are treated under tax law, i.e. COrporations can deduct the their share of the Retirement contribution as an expense and they can deduct their insurance costs as expenses against Corporat earnings.
And again, while I respect your almost pure libertarian views, those are in principle unworkable. Every president has used Tax policy to influence industries and corporate behavior. R&D tax credits have been used by Presidents to stimulate Investments by certain industry sectors [Drugs, Military/Defense, Chemical] so if you are a retail firm, the tax policy is favoring those industries that do R&D vs. those that are retailing or service firms, etc.
The Oil and gas industry has at times had investment tax credits to stimulate new drilling, again the tax policy is favoring those industries vs. others.
And as stated before, every President has used tax policy to not only collect revenues for the Feds, but to help shape both economic and social policy. that is the world we live in. So the issue for me is what is the sensible use of tax policy for economic and social policy.
As I stated before, had Nixon got his plan thru, we would not be dealing with Obamacare in all liklihood today. So step out of your libertarian theoretical worldview and ask yourself this, which would you rather have in place. Nixon’s plan or Obama’s when one relied on the private sector the other was “Government run”
" Obama’s is a totally government run system that in principle, does not like the private insurance industry and in theory, they would want the Federal Government to run the entire Health Insurance System.
LOL! Zero care requires folks to buy private insurance, just like Nixon's. There's no real difference, including the part about eliminating competition to run up the costs. Both of them are set up to benefit the industries and pander to their political customers by hiding costs and otherwise keeping them stupid and ignorant.
"pre-existing medical conditions, it is impossible for those folks to get health insurance, so if you have diabetes, heart issues, high-blood pressure, etc, many Private insurance firms will not even allow those types of folks to buy insurance.
It hasn't been that way for a long time. Zero care did not affect any significant change.
"Nixon’s Health Insurance plan if you stop and think about it is not in essence different from how most Retirement plans are used today."
Yes it is. No one is forcing participation. Nixon, the crook's plan forces participation just like Lord zero's plan.
"...these Defined Contribution plans are run by Private Equity Fund/Mutual Fund Companies who have accountability to their Shareholders"
LOL!
"step out of your libertarian theoretical worldview...
This is a religious thread, I will now return to the regularly scheduled program. Thou shalt not steal is not some rule of thumb to be compromised for cause. Good and evil are determined by referencing a moral code, which is a codified set of rules instituted for the purpose of protecting individual rights. For that code to be objective, it must protect the rights of every individual equally, w/o respect to posiiton, or any other qualification. Referencing the code obtains that stealing is evil, regardless of cause — unless you're at war with them.
"...and ask yourself this, which would you rather have in place. Nixon’s plan or Obama’s when one relied on the private sector the other was “Government run”.
Neither.